> on a language without a standard library? Because the other languages & with bigger runtimes and more comprehensive standard libraries such as Java applets,

> on a language without a standard library? Because the other languages & with bigger runtimes and more comprehensive standard libraries such as Java applets, Microsoft Silverlight, Macromedia Flash that were promoted for browsers to create "rich fat clients" were ultimately rejected for various reasons. The plugins had performance problems, security problems, browser crashes, etc. Java applets was positioned by Sun & Netscape to be the "serious professional" language. Javascript was intended to be the "toy" language. In 1999, Microsoft added XMLHttpRequest() to IE's Javascript engine to enable Outlook-for-web email that acted dynamically like Outlook-on-desktop without page refreshes. Other browsers copied that. (We described the early "web apps" with jargon such as "DHTML" DynamicHTML and "AJAX".) In 2004, Google further proved out Javascript capabilities for "rich interactive clients" with Gmail and Google Maps. Smoothly drag map tiles around and zooming in and out without Macromedia Flash. Even without any deliberate coordinated agenda, the industry collectively begins to turn Javascript from a toy language into the dominant language for all serious web apps. Javascript now had huge momentum. A language runtime being built into the browser without a standard library like Javascript was prioritized by the industry more than the other options like plugins that had a bigger "batteries included" library. This overwhelming industry preference for Javascript happened before Node.js for server-side apps in 2009 and before Steve Jobs supposedly killed Flash in 2010. The situation today of Node.js devs using npm to download "leftpad()" and a hundred other dependencies to "fill in the gaps" of basic functionality comes from the history of Javascript's adoption.